Lessons from a Tragedy

Still, regardless of the ethnicity of the police officer firing the shots, it seems to raise a lot of the same questions about why the shots are often fired in particular neighborhoods and at people of a particular race.
As well it should. The history of policing in America really is the history of race relations. So, if the takeaway from this is that there's no problem because the police weren't convicted, then that would be tragic and that would be completely missing the point. This was an operation that was extremely problematic, and every effort has to be made to make sure it never happens again.

Also controversial with the Diallo case were jury biases in Albany versus the Bronx. Here, similar concerns about bias led the three detectives to waive their right to a jury and seemingly hedge their bets with only a judge. What does that say about the system's ability to provide fair trials when these issues of race and law enforcement come up against one another?
This really is a legal case more than your ordinary criminal case, because the law of self-defense is very favorable to the police. I think what they were trying to avoid was the possibility that a jury of individuals might say, well, with so many charges, we have to convict them of something. New York law allows police … to make pretty serious mistakes and still not be criminally liable, because the state has to disprove any justification beyond reasonable doubt--which is a very high standard. A judge has to put himself in the police's shoes and look at the case through their eyes. With the jury, the concern would be that the jury would say, well, let's compromise. But this judge saw that if you have doubts about whether the cops are completely justified, then, following the law, you must return a not guilty verdict, which is what he did.

You mentioned before that the shooting forced law enforcement to rethink certain aspects of their work and relationships with other agencies. How so?
There's been a serious over-reliance on police in this society. Police should not be doing everything. In a democratic society, police should be in reserve for tasks when you absolutely need them. So, for example, the Kalua Club, where this incident occurred, isn't a club that continues to operate. It's a club that's probably violated numerous laws, and, if there are community concerns, every regulatory body [like the] state liquor authority, should be engaged to stop a club like this from operating, before you take the dramatic step of sending armed undercover police onto the premises. And they've already made changes in the way undercover operations are done.

So basically, there are much easier things the city can nab a place on to avoid extreme action like this.
Yes. If there really is a demonstrable, provable community concern, there should be a laundry list of things that should be done, and police should be last on that list. They should be the last resort, not the first.

Race is obviously a charged political issue on the national stage right now. Is there a larger message in this trial?
The larger message is that there's an over-reliance on the criminal-justice system, and that that has really fallen in a whole host of ways on minority Americans. This is just one example. And it's really not fair or decent to blame the cops--they're not the ones who create the system that we have. The outrage that should really be sparked by this event should be over how we have a system where so many minorities end up on the receiving end of our criminal-justice system? Why are they constantly on the receiving end? Can't we have a more balanced and a more just approach, and a more decent and humane approach?

© 2008